Pot, meet kettle. The editorial board of The New York Times accuses opponents of the immigration bill of using “rhetorical distortions.” All of the following highly-charged terms appear in this editorial opinion:

appalling
died
stubbornly
bitter
disconnected from reality
crumpled
swarming
kill
shrouded
distortions
incantations
polluted
demise
rotting
thimble-dipping
raids
shatter
cripple
ramshackle
disjointed
debacle
brusquely
pretending
delusions
fishy
rot
desperation
frenzy
hot wind blowing
elephant herd
bloated bill
toppled into a ditch

I see nothing resembling rational argumentation, in which reasons are cited in support of the bill. Nor do I see any attempt to engage the arguments of the bill’s opponents. What I see are (1) hyperbole, (2) cynicism (i.e., questioning the motives—and sometimes the intelligence—of the bill’s opponents), (3) name-calling, (4) innuendo, and (5) angry rhetoric. The Times may think that nothing it says is going to persuade opponents of the bill. That may be true, but the target audience should not be people whose minds are made up. It should be people whose minds are not made up. Nothing in this editorial opinion has any tendency to persuade these people. It reads like a primal, self-righteous scream.